The Role of Non-State-Owned Religious School in Co-Production Scheme To Deliver Public Service

Introduction The essay focuses on the role of co-production in public service delivery. The aim of the essay is to analyse the role co-production in delivering education service. The essay proposes the concept of co-production and its effects on the provision of education service. The essay takes the existence of non-state- owned religious school in Indonesia as the example of the implementation of co-production concept. The essay is structured into four sections. The first section is introduction. It briefly introduces the aim and the structure of the essay. The second section is concepts. It defines the concept of public service delivery, public participation and co-production. The third section is the analysis. It analyse the role of co-production and its problems in the public service provision. This section also analyse the strengths and weaknesses of co-production. The last section is the conclusion. The essay concludes that co-production helps governments in providing public services especially in remote areas. However, the government needs to regulate them to maintain the quality of the service. Concept Public Service Delivery Public service delivery is a process of producing outputs in public services scheme. It concerns with the provision of the outputs such as school class, the addition of road length and welfare benefits. It is a part of ‘the implementation’ of the service as the larger design of policy enactment activities (Alford and Flynn, 2012, p8). Compared to ‘delivery’ that deals with output production, ‘the implementation’ finds ‘outcomes’ such as improved literacy, road safety or mitigation of poverty. Joshi and Moore (2004, p33-34) propose several ways to deliver the service, particularly to poor people in developing countries. First, it is a collective action that does not involve other parties called ‘self-provisioning’. In here, people in a particular area provide their basic needs using their resources. For instances, they provide security, funeral expenses and education for their children. Secondly, they ‘direct social provision through private associations’. It helps poor people to get public services such as basic education. The development of private association was dominated by religious organisations. Recent development shows that there are many forms of private association such as ‘private philanthropic foundations’, ‘locality-based associations’, and caste association (Joshi and Moore, 2004, p33). The third way concerns with commercial basis. It is a ‘direct market provision’ where the people as the consumers must purchase the service from the market as the providers (Joshi and Moore, 2004, p34). One example of the service is health services. People must earn their resources to get the service from the providers. The next way is using ‘direct social provision through state agencies’. It is the attempt of the government to provide very basic needs of the people by forming an agency that deals with the service or appoint apparatus to deliver the services. Finally, the service can be delivered through ‘indirect state provision’. The government applies ‘sub-contracting’ mechanism where the service is initiated by the government and delivered by other agencies. The government can involve NGOs, user groups, and religious organisations in delivering the services. Joshi and Moore added that the last mechanism growth vast in poorer countries (Joshi and Moore, 2004, p34). Public Participation Public participation is related to the involvement of public in service provision alongside with the government. The involvement of the public is based on ‘the spirit of togetherness’ that attracts people to help each other (Suwarno, 2006, p5). Also, the public take actions to ensure the execution of government programmes. The aim of citizen participation is to voice wants and preferences, so the service can be delivered as needed. Citizen participation, therefore, is important in order to influence the government in the policy making process (Marschall, 2004, p231). From the government’s perspective, the participation can direct the decision maker to formulate desired policy (Innes and Booher, 2004, p422). It also can be used to get legitimacy in decision making that affect the public. Innes and Booher (2004, p422) argued that good public participation must be in a collaborative form. It, therefore, needs the involvement of citizens and other parties such as non-profit organisations, planner and public administrators, and organised interests. In addition, to make an effective participation, the collaboration must be complemented with interaction and dialogue. In a wider perspective, public participation is the involvement of the community in public policy processes. They participate in formulation, socialisation and implementation of the policies (Parry, et al., 1992, in Suwarno, 2006, p5). This perspective proposes that public participation can be exercised from the beginning of the processes to the delivery of the service. On the other hand, a narrower definition of public participation is community participation. It is an educational and empowering process that allows the community to identify issues, problems and their preferences. It also raises the responsibility of the community to formulate, organise and evaluate the collective action (Suwarno, 2006, p7). Co-Production The public services can be delivered through several mechanisms. One of them is co-production. Olstrom (1996, in Bovaird, 2007, p847) defines co-production as “the process through which inputs used to provide goods or services are contributed by individuals who are not in the same organisation”. The concept has a wide meaning that stresses on individual’s contribution. Joshi and Moore (2003, taken from Bovaird, 2007, 847) argued that co-production is the collaboration between state representatives and public communities to provide services to the public. In here, both parties give their substantial resources based on their ability or specialisation. In addition, both parties share ‘conjoint responsibility’ in which both formulate regulation and execute the processes (Marschall, 2004, p 231). Co-production can be analysed using ‘consumer and production concept’ (Suwarno, 2006, p11). The concept is divided into three important terms. The first is the ‘consumer producers’. They are involved in the production process and then consume the output of the production. The second term is ‘regular producer’.  They engage in the production of the services and trade the product with payments. The last part of the concept is co-production. It connects ‘consumer producer’ and ‘regular producer’ to be involved in the processes of services or goods production. They contribute to the process by giving inputs based on their role (Park, nd, in Suwarno, 2006, p11). Co-production requires the voluntary action of citizens. It is the situation where the citizens get involved in service delivery based on their intention (Marschall, 2004, p232). Osborne and Strokosch (2014, p34) added that the participation is not only in the production stage but also in the planning process. The framework illustrates the interaction between government and citizenry and the relationship between participation and service provision. To make the communication more effective and efficient, Suwarno emphasises the role of co-producer in generating co-production. The role of co-producer is important because they support channelling the participation and the service. To implement co-production in society, both government and citizens must build a good communication. It is important to transfer information related to the service delivery. Several points that are important in co-production are the knowledge about key aspects of public services delivery; expected roles and responsibilities from them; and the circumstances that may affect the quality and the delivery of the services (Marschall, 2004, p232). Co-production, therefore, requires the awareness of both sides to collaborate in the services provision. The implementation of co-production shows the improvement of public participation. It transforms into a more formal form (Marschal, 2004, p233). It is the basis or regulation of the involvement and the role of the citizen. It is intended to clarify the roles division of both citizens and government. The role division can effectively deliver the services based on the arrangement that has been agreed. The discussion of co-production shows the development of citizen participation in several aspects (Marschall, 2004, p233). First, it considers the growth of supportive participation from the citizen to the service delivery. In more recent form, co-production also regards the participation of non-political organisation in the service delivery. The growth of the participation shows the development of citizen behaviour to support the government policy. Secondly, it stresses on the processes to involve the participation and how to organise co-production. Thirdly, co-production not only concerns with individual action but also deals with broader interests. It also gives attention to the situation in the area where co-production is practised. ANALYSIS Madrasah, an Example of Co-production Concept in Indonesia In a simpler definition, co-production “refers to an arrangement where citizens produce their services at least in part” (Brandsen and Pestoff, 2006, p592). It covers the effort of citizens to provide services with government assistance. For example, private schools that are run and managed by non-profit organisations. In here, the schools give education services independently but still follow the government regulation. One example of co-production in Indonesia is Madrasah or Islamic school. The Madrasah were erected by local people as their concern to provide religious education in their local areas (Elfishy, 2014, p4). Recent development shows the changing of the orientation of madrasah. They are open education institutions that are not only dealing with religious materials (Hefner, nd, taken from Rahman, 2012, p235), but also combine it with secular materials in the curriculum. There are two models of formal madrasah, state-owned madrasah and non-state-owned madrasah. Both madrasahs are formal education providers (Elfishy, 2014, p3). The first is madrasah that is owned and managed by the government. In here, government arranges the policies that affect the school, such as the appointment of teachers, school principal and class maintenance. Most teachers and officers are civil servants. The second is madrasah that is run and managed by non-profit organisation (Suryadarma et al., 2004, p403). Compared to state-owned madrasah, it has independence to manage the school. Most teachers and officers are local citizens. It mostly serves citizens in poor and remote areas. The madrasah, therefore, is an education institution that is run by  citizens and serves local people. In addition, Indonesian education system also recognises the existence of ‘madrasah diniyah’. It is a non-formal and non-profit madrasah that only teach religious education (Elfishy, 2014, p3). The Ministry of Religion has the obligation to give supervision to both madrasahs. In here, the ministry also designs the curriculum for the school (Suryadarma et al., 2004, p403). On the one hand, the students of Madrasah get more knowledge. It is the combination of religious materials and general knowledge (Elfishy, 2014, p3). On the other hand, it might distress the final-year students facing national final exam, as it tests general subjects. Compared to public school student, students in madrasah have fewer education hours on those subjects (Elfishy, 2014, p3). It, therefore, affect the result tests of madrasah student. The average final test result of students of Madrasah is under the achievement of public school student (Huda 2016, p319). Huda added that it is proven by the student success indicator and the percentage of graduate student that is accepted into prestigious public universities. The effort of non-state-owned madrasah to provide education service faces several problems. It makes the management, and the quality of the service is not satisfying. The main problem is the lack of funding. All non-state-owned madrasah depends on government funds (Umar, nd, taken from Rahman, 2012, p236) as the student fees are insufficient to run the school. The school administrators, therefore, must manage the school using limited funds. They must pay teachers, maintenance the building and provide sufficient facilitations (Rahman, 2012, p236). The salary for the teacher is very cheap, so many of them find alternative jobs to fulfil their daily needs, for example, as a storekeeper, farmer, sailor or teacher in other schools (Suryadarma, et al., 2004, p404). These problems affect the quality of the education. If these problems can be solved, public, especially in remote and poor areas, can expect a better education service. Reducing Costs The service provision by the third sector can help reducing service costs (Alford and Flynn, 2012, P31). In here, the implementation of co-production helps the government to reduce the cost of the service that is the obligation of the government. The public has built the non-state-owned madrasah voluntarily. They also manage the building maintenance. In here, the government can provide supervision to the schools that already provide the service. The government can focus to standardise and improve the teaching quality and transfer funds to fulfil the operational needs. The funds from the government, even though help the madrasah to operate, is not enough to accelerate the quality of the education provided. Another problem is related to the development of new technology. Many non-state-owned madrasahs have funding problems. It affects the provision supporting devices in accelerating teaching activities. For instances, many madrasahs do not have laboratory facilities or internet access (Huda, 2016, p326). As formal institution that delivers education service, non-state-owned madrasah receives government transfers. The amount given is based on the number of the students, the more students, the more money is got (Suryadarma, et al., 2004, p404). On the one hand, it can help the operational of the school. The school can focus on improving the teaching quality. On the other hand, madrasah that only has a small number of students will face operational problems because the money they receive might be not enough. The problem often happens in remote areas with a small population. To solve the problem, the government concerns give more money to the school in remote areas (Suryadarma, et al., 2004, p404). It is expected to make the school keep operated and keep the students in the school. Indonesian education system allows schools to take charge fees to the users. It is not included in the government allocated annual transfer to the school. The school usually use the fees to pay additional courses, purchase stationaries and cleaning services (Suryadarma, et al., 2004, p404). On the one hand, charging fees is a financial solution to the non-state-owned madrasah. The madrasah cannot only rely on the transfers from the government. On the other hand, the fees charged might burden the student parents especially the poor. They might criticise the aim, the amount and the accountability of the use of the fees or even deny paying. Improving Value The involvement of the third sector in service provision can also increase the value of the service (Alford and Flynn, 2012, P31). Co-production that involves the client as the co-producer can improve the quality of the service. Alford and Flynn argued that, compared to government acting alone, collaboration with other parties can raise the effectiveness of the service. Non-state-owned madrasah supports the effort of the government in raising the quality of education. The existence of the madrasah, therefore, is crucial to improving education services, especially in poorer and more remote areas. It is by the statement of Alawiyah (2014, p520) that argued that madrasah raises the number of students. On the other hand, the effectivity of the service is still under the achievement of the public schools. Non-state-owned madrasah is still left behind public schools and state-owned madrasah. The quality and the salary of the teacher are low. Teacher quality and salary in public school are higher as most of them are civil servants (Suryadarma, et al., 2004, p404). The facilitation in public schools is much better than that in non-state-owned madrasah. Poor management of the school makes the public place madrasah as the last option to get an education (Alawiyah, 2014, p52). The public also considers that the alumni of madrasah cannot compete as competitive as public school alumni. Alawiyah, however, argued that madrasah provides religious values that are very crucial in character building. It is value-added that is offered by madrasah. To improve the education service provision by madrasah, the Indonesian government launches several programmes. First, in 2003 the government established “Program Pengembangan Madrasah” (Madrasah Development Centre). It is an organisation that focuses on the improvement of the quality of madrasah. The programme has several functions such as assistance, quality assurance, and technical guidance. It is also a facilitator for the public to send feedbacks or ideas related to the education policy (Directorate General of Islamic Education, 2016, p). Secondly, the Ministry of Religion (MoR) also considers the importance of supervision function by appoints supervisors. The supervisors have tasks to give academic and managerial supervision to madrasah (Minister of Religion, 2012, p3). To maintain the quality of the service, MoR arranges internal audit that focusses on the performance of the school and teachers. For the teachers, the audit is intended to do ‘performance appraisal’ which assesses skills, potentials, strengths and weaknesses (Lestiawan, 2016, p45). The audit report can be used to improve the quality of education service and prevents from factors that undermine the service delivery. Conclusion Co-production helps the government to deliver public service especially in remote areas.  By using this concept, the government can educate and empower citizens to identify their problems and gain solutions related to the public service. It is intended to make the citizens have the ability to formulate, manage and deliver their service with the supervision of the government. Co-production, therefore, needs active participation and involvement from the citizens. For the citizens, the concept of co-production can be used to specify their needs. The service, therefore, might meet their preference. On the one hand, co-production concept might benefit the majority of citizen because they have more voices. On the other hand, the government must also consider the existence of the minority. It is the party that might not get any benefit from the co-production. As the service is run by the citizens, the government might experience difficulties in control the service provision. In addition, the accountability of the service might be questionable. The variation of the service delivery also can create a standard gap among the service providers. The government, therefore, must regulate the service provision in order to standardise and control the service by its co-producer. The government also needs to evaluate the co-production scheme. It is to identify problems and find solutions to solve it. By controlling the implementation and evaluating the result, the government can exercise co-production concept in other forms of public services. List of Reference Alawiyah, F. (2016). Pendidikan Madrasah Di Indonesia (Madrasah Education System in Indonesia). Jurnal Aspirasi (Trial), 5(1), 51-58. Alford, J., & O'Flynn, J. (2012). Rethinking Public Service Delivery: Managing With External Providers. Palgrave Macmillan. Bovaird, T. (2007). Beyond Engagement and Participation: User and Community Coproduction of Public Services. Public Administration Review, 67(5), 846-860. Brandsen, T., & Pestoff, V. (2006). Co-production, the Third Sector and the Delivery of Public Services: An Introduction. Public Management Review, 8(4), 493-501. Directorate General of Islamic Education, (2016), Keputusan Direktur Jenderal Pendidikan Agama Islam No. 721 Tahun 2016 tentang Pedoman Pengelolaan Organisasi Pusat Pengembangan Madrasah (The Decree of The Director General of Islamic Education No. 721 year 2016 on The Organisational Management Guidance of Madrasah Development Centre). Jakarta. Elfishy, L. (2014). Sejarah Perkembangan Pendidikan Madrasah Diniyah Awaliyah (MDA) (The Development of Madrasah Diniyah Awaliyah). Retrieved May 10, 2017 from: https://www.academia.edu/9156443/sejarah_perkembanngan_pendidikan_madrasah_diniyah_awaliyah_MDA_?auto=download Huda, K. (2016). Problematika Madrasah Dalam Meningkatkan Mutu Pendidikan Islam (Islamic School Problems in Improving Islamic Education Quality). Jurnal Dinamika Penelitian, 16(2), 309-336. Innes, J. E., & Booher, D. E. (2004). Reframing Public Participation: Strategies for the 21st Century. Planning Theory & Practice, 5(4), 419-436. Joshi, A., & Moore, M. (2004). Institutionalised Co-production: Unorthodox Public Service Delivery in Challenging Environments. Journal of Development Studies, 40(4), 31-49. Lestiawan, B. (2016). Pengaruh Audit Mutu Internal Terhadap Kinerja Guru di Madrasah Aliyah Negeri Lamongan (The Impact of Internal Quality Audit to the teacher Performance in Public Islamic High School in Lamongan (Doctoral Dissertation). Surabaya: UIN Sunan Ampel. Marschall, M. J. (2004). Citizen Participation and the Neighbourhood Context: A New Look at the Coproduction of Local Public Goods. Political Research Quarterly, 57(2), 231-244. Minister of Religion. (2012). Peraturan Nomor 2 Tentang Pengawas Madrasah dan Pengawas Pendidikan Agama Islam Pada Sekolah (The Ordinance of The Minister of Religion No. 721 Year 2012 on Supervision of Madrasah and Supervision of Islamic Education in Schools). Jakarta. Osborne, S. P., & Strokosch, K. (2013). It Takes Two to Tango? Understanding the CO‐production of Public Services by Integrating the Services Management and Public Administration Perspectives. British Journal of Management, 24(S1), S31-S47. Rahman, K. A. (2012). Peningkatan Mutu Madrasah Melalui Penguatan Partisipasi Masyarakat (The Improvement of the Quality of Madrasah by Strengthening Community Participation). Jurnal Pendidikan Islam, 1(2), 227-246. Suryadarma, D., Suryahadi, A., Sumarto, S., & Rogers, F. H. (2006). Improving Student Performance in Public Primary Schools in Developing Countries: Evidence from Indonesia. Education Economics, 14(4), 401-429. Suwarno, Y. (2006). Co-Production in Public Service; A Shared-Role of Bureaucracy and Citizenry. Good Governance, 1(-), 1-17.